Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009

Anr vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India & ... on 23 March, 2011

He has cited the decisions in Israil & Ors. v. Samset Rahman & Ors., AIR 1914 Cal 362; Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 340; Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheswari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, AIR 1969 SC 556; K.I. Shephard & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 431; Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Barbrak Ltd., [1987] 1 A.C. 597; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. H.L. Trehan & Ors., (1989)1 SCC 765 to 770; Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1; The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. The Jalgaon Municipal Council & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 6 1659; Kalpana Bhandari & Ors. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India & Ors., [2005] 125 Comp Cas 804 (Bom); Gurmej Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 2699; Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (AA) & Anr., (2009) 14 SCC 338; and Securities & Exchange Board of India v. Ajay Agarwal, (2010) 3 SCC 765.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - J K Biswas - Full Document

Beena Ramani vs Delhi Development Authority on 12 July, 2013

14.It has been vehemently argued that no show cause notice was served upon the appellant prior to the inspection. There is no such provision nor any such provision could be pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant wherein there is a requirement that a prior notice or show cause notice should be served upon a person before carrying inspection. The notice would frustrate the very purpose of the inspection as the unscrupulous elements would be making use of the time and remove the offending substance(s) or modify the use just to get away with the inspection. This takes away the sting from the contentions of the Counsel for the appellant. And the judgments relied in this context in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (supra) and Gurmej Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) are not attracted to the facts of the instant case.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Som Nath vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 March, 2011

(a) Gurmej Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 1995(3) RSJ 491 CWP No.8257 of 2010 (O&M) 5 In this case, the petitioner was working as a Social Education and Panchayat Officer and he had been given current duty charge of the post of Block Development and Panchayat Office with effect from December 20, 1988 and he continued to hold such charge till superannuation i.e. November 30, 1989.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M Grover - Full Document

Union Of India vs Shri Virender Singh Yadav on 30 November, 2010

Further, from perusal of evidence of Inquiry Officer, Sh. Komal Singh (DW1) it is found that he has stated to the effect that he has examined departmental witnesses as well as cross examined the plaintiff when he appeared in witness box in his defence. It transpires at the time of departmental enquiry except the Inquiry Officer, no other person representing the department s t u v w x y z { | } ~  € ƒ‚„|Kw … ‚ † was present. In these circumstances, it would be easily presumed that inquiry officer must be interested for giving findings against the respondent so that the matter pursued by him should succeed. Accordingly, later on being inquiry officer he might have given findings against the respondent. It is against the principle of natural justice. On this score reliance can be made in case Gurmej Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2699, wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1